AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
By these Petitions, the Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur dated 08.10.2025 and 21.09.2023 invalidating the caste claim of the present Petitioners belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.
Brief facts in Writ Petition No. 6614/2025 are as under:
On 09.10.2018 the Petitioner has obtained Caste Certificate of ‘Mana’ which belongs to Scheduled Tribe community from the Sub Divisional Officer, Umred. The Petitioner is a student and has taken admission on 02.09.2025 in Respondent No.2/J.D. College of Engineering and Management, Nagpur in Computer Science and Engineering (Data Science), who is currently in second year of the said course in seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. His caste claim was forwarded for invalidation on 07.02.2025 to Respondent/Committee alongwith the application form dated 07.02.2025 as well as all the relevant documents. On 03.04.2025, the Respondent/Committee then issued a show cause notice after having a Vigilance Report of Petitioner’s cousin sister namely Sanika Uttam Choudhari dated 03.04.2025, wherein the Police Vigilance Officer came up with some documents showing contrary entries and directed the present Petitioner to remain present for hearing on 22.04.2025. The present Petitioner has explained the contrary entries despite there are consistent documents showing the forefathers of the Petitioner belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, the Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the present Petitioner.
The brief facts in Writ Petition No. 7700/2023 are as under:
The Petitioner belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra and is included at Serial No. 18 in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. The Petitioner has obtained Caste Certificate of ‘Mana’ on 09.10.2018 which belongs to Scheduled Tribe community from the Sub Divisional Officer, Umred. The Petitioner herein also a student and wants to pursue his further education of Civil Engineering on the basis of caste validity certificate. The Petitioner has completed his Diploma in Polytechnic from Government Polytechnic College, Nagpur. The caste claim of the present Petitioner was forwarded for verification on 10.04.2023 to Respondent/Committee through The Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Nagpur. Alongwith the letter, the Petitioner submitted an online application form dated 21.04.2023 as well as all the relevant documents in support of his caste claim as belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe category. The Respondent/Committee then sent a show cause notice after having a Vigilance Report of Petitioner’s cousin sister namely Ranjana Gangadhar Choudhari to the Petitioner on 22.04.2023, wherein the Police Vigilance Officer have collected some adverse documents. The Petitioner’s father appeared before the Respondent/Committee and submitted the reply to the Police Vigilance Cell Report on 22.04.2023. The Petitioner’s caste claim was pending and he had to submit the caste validity certificate to the allotted college, the Petitioner sent representations to the Respondent/Committee. Despite of sending various representations, the Committee has not decided the Petitioner’s caste claim and, therefore, the Writ Petition was filed by the directions of this Court to the Respondent Committee to decide his caste claim. It is contended by the Petitioner that, despite there are consistent entries and the validities are granted to the cousin sisters of the present Petitioner, the Committee has not considered the same and invalidated the caste claim and hence the Petitioner is before this Court.
Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6614/2025, who submitted that, the cousin sister of the Petitioner i.e. Sanika Uttam Choudhari whose caste claim was invalidated by the Committee and that the said order was challenged by the said Sanika Uttam Choudhari before this Court in Writ Petition No. 5666/2024. By the order of this Court, she was granted with the validity certificate. Her vigilance report was relied by the Committee to invalidate the caste claim of the present Petitioner. Now, as she is granted with the validity and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors., 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, the present Petitioner is also entitled to receive the validity certificate.
He also invited our attention towards the various documents including the pre-constitutional documents and submitted that, on the similar documents the present Petitioner also relied upon, as now the cousin sisters of the present Petitioner granted with a validity certificate in view of the order of this Court and, therefore, the present Petition deserves to be allowed.
Ms. Nagrare, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 7700/2023 submitted that, in the present case also, the Committee relied upon the vigilance report in the case of his cousin sister namely Ranjana Gangadhar Choudhari who was also granted with a validity certificate and on the similar documents the present Petitioner is relied upon and, therefore, in view of the judgment of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), the present Petitioner shall be granted with a validity certificate.
Per contra, Mrs. Jachak, learned Addl.GP for the Respondent/Committee, strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that, considering there are contrary documents collected during the vigilance by the Vigilance Officer and, therefore, the Petitions deserve to be dismissed. She further submitted that, the genealogy submitted by the Petitioners for validation is corroborating, however, there is no evidence produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee while submitting the proposal or during the hearing of the matter. In case of the blood relatives of the Petitioners, no detail enquiry was conducted. She submitted that, as the case of the present Petitioners are concerned, which sufficiently shows that the contrary documents which are on record shows that the forefathers of the present Petitioners are also recorded as ‘Kunbi Mani’ and considering the same the Committee has rightly invalidated both the claims and, therefore, the Petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. We have gone through the record and proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the assistance of the learned Addl.GP
The genealogical tree of the Petitioners, is reproduced as under:
On perusal of the record, it appears that, the oldest document produced by the Petitioners is of 24.12.1930 which is a certified copy of the vaccination register of an infant born namely Bhagu. In the said certified copy, it is mentioned that Sadhya Bangya Mana is having child Bhagu (mentioned as ‘Ladka’), the date of birth is shown as 24.12.1930 and the date of vaccination is shown as 22.03.1931. This old document is doubted by the Vigilance Cell as well as the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that there is mention of ‘ladka’ (son), whereas the document procured by the Vigilance Cell, which is at Page No. 91 in the other Petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 5666/2024 on which the Petitioner is relied upon shows father’s name is shown as Sadhya Bangya, name of son or daughter is shown as Mana ladki (daughter) Bhagu. On comparison of the document procured by the Vigilance Cell as well as the document produced by the Petitioner, it appears that the date of birth, date of vaccination and all other details are matching except the word ‘ladki’. The only mistake appears to be the mention of the word ‘ladka’ instead of ‘ladki’. It can be inferred that it is a clerical mistake made by the Authorities and the similar observation is made by this Court while deciding the Writ Petition Nos. 5666/2024 and 7146/2022.
This Court while considering the caste claim of the cousin sisters of the present Petitioners i.e. Sanika Uttam Choudhari and Khushi Purushottam Chaudhari have considered in detail these contrary entries and observed that, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not taken any pain to show how this document is pertaining to Wagh family specifically when the names are appearing in the family tree of the Petitioners. Only if a certified copy is obtained by some other person, the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot conclude that the said document must be pertaining to the Applicant therein. In fact, it appears that the forefathers of the Petitioners were not much educated and it may happen that somebody helped them to obtain the certified copy of the said document. There is no restriction or any law prescribing that only the member of the family can apply for the documents. Once the certified copy is placed on record and when there is no finding that the said document is fabricated or fraudulently obtained, it has presumptive value and unless the said presumption is rebutted, the evidentiary value of the said document will remain intact. Only by saying that the document must be of the Applicant – Wagh would not suffice, unless it is shown that there is a person by name Sakharam Warlu in the family of Wagh.
This Court further observed that, the validity certificates issued in favour of Uttam Chaudhari i.e. the father of Sanika i.e. the uncle of the present Petitioners, cousin uncle Krishna Chaudhari and cousin aunt – Mala Chinduji Chaudhari which were also produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee discarded those validity certificates. The validity certificates in respect of Krishna and Mala were not considered on the ground that there is no affidavit filed by the Petitioners of the validity holders. However, it can be seen that the names of Krishna and Mala are appearing in the family tree of the Petitioners. Insofar as the validity pertaining to the father of Sanika i.e. the uncle of the present Petitioners namely Uttam Chaudhari is concerned, it was not considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that there was no vigilance enquiry conducted as per law. Now, the vigilance was conducted as far as the Petitioner namely Sanika Uttam Choudhari and Ranjana Gangadhar Chaudhari. The said vigilance report was considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5666/2024 and despite the vigilance has recorded the contrary entries, this Court has considered that the Petitioner namely Sanika has established the caste claim.
This Court has also given the reference of judgment of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Paragraph Nos. 19 and 22, which reads as under:
“19.Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 clearly provides that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, it shall forward the application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry. Therefore, in every case, as a matter of routine, the Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry When sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 contemplates that only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant that the case should be referred to Vigilance Cell, it follows that the Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an order recording brief reasons why it is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant. Before referring the case to the Vigilance Cell, application of mind to the material produced by the applicant is required and therefore, the application of mind must be reflected in the order sheets of the Scrutiny Committee.
“22.We can also contemplate one more scenario which is found in many cases. These are the cases where the applicant relies upon caste validity certificates issued to his blood relatives. Obviously, such a validity certificate has to be issued either by the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case or constituted under the Rules framed under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny Committee must ascertain whether the certificate is genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to decide whether the applicant has established that the person to whom the validity certificate relied upon by him has been issued is his blood relative. For that purpose, the applicant must establish his precise and exact relationship with the person to whom the validity certificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry will have to be made by the Scrutiny Committee whether the validity certificate has been granted to the blood relative of the applicant by the concerned Scrutiny Committee after holding due enquiry and following due procedure. Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committee has issued a validity certificate contemplated in terms of the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, the examination will be whether the enquiry contemplated by the said decision has been held. If the certificate relied upon is issued after coming into force of the 2000 Act, the Scrutiny Committee will have to ascertain whether the concerned Scrutiny Committee had followed the procedure laid down therein as well as in the ST Rules or the SC Rules, as the case may be. For this verification, the Scrutiny Committee can exercise powers conferred on it by Section 9(d) by requisitioning the record of the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee, which has issued the validity certificate to the blood relative of the applicant. If the record has been destroyed, the Scrutiny Committee can ascertain whether a due enquiry has been held on the basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee by which caste validity has been granted to the blood relative of the applicant. If it is established that the validity certificate has been granted without holding a proper inquiry or without recording reasons, obviously the caste scrutiny committee cannot validate the caste certificate only on the basis of such validity certificate of the blood relative.”
Whereas the Petitioner in Petition No.7700/2023 relied upon the vigilance report in the case of Ranjana Gangadhar Chaudhari, who was directly granted the validity certificate by the Committee itself.
Thus, all these validity certificates which were granted to the family members of the Petitioners are ignored. The Committee has also ignored the decision of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), wherein in para 9 it is held that, “the matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner.”
In the light of the above observations and considering that the validities are granted to various family members on the basis of similar documents and, therefore, the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee appears to be erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, the orders passed by the Committee deserve to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
Writ Petition Nos. 6614/2025 and 7700/2023 are allowed.
The orders passed by the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur dated 08.10.2025 and 21.09.2023 invalidating the caste claim of the present Petitioners belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe, are hereby quashed and set aside.
It is declared that the Petitioners namely Ashwin S/o Manohar Choudhari and Kartik S/o Manohar Choudhari have duly established that they belong to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe.
The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur is hereby directed to issue validity certificates to the Petitioners of belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The Petitioners can rely on this judgment until the validity certificates are issued to them.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.